User talk:Ched/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

arb test

WP:ADMINACCT, WP:ARBACCT — Ched :  ?  03:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You know, they say, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. NE Ent 03:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

:-) That would certainly be ... ummmm ... interesting. — Ched :  ?  04:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually NE Ent, and although I don't wish it on anyone, you're one of the few non-admins I would enthusiastically support as an Arbitrator. Think of all the precendents you could set! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Likewise. — Ched :  ?  05:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

RFAR

You might look at commons category contribution and contrbutions before 4th November 1.39.37.124 (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It might be better if you presented this. — Ched :  ?  07:12, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

RE: WP:ADMINACCT

Ched,

I actually thought your essay had a lot of promise. I saw it was deleted as db-self, I've taken the liberty of copying a cached version in my sandbox and am working on it (my writing's a bit flowery, by my own admission ). If you'd like to work on it, it's over here . KoshVorlon 20:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Kosh. Perhaps it was my timing, or perhaps my presentation was off (or both - or just poor judgement all the way aournd). Either way, there didn't seem to be much interested in my efforts in that area. I will watchlist it, and if I think of something, I will let you know. Best of luck with your efforts. — Ched :  ?  21:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I do think a WP:ARBACCT policy is needed (particularly if we end up with an activist Arbcom). It's just that your second point didn't make a lot of sense. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's an 'if'; more a question of when. Intothatdarkness 21:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@KoshVorlon: I've histmerged Ched's edits into your sandbox. Like article space, creative content from Wikipedia space should not be cut-and-paste moved without proper attribution. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 05:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Jenks24 Typically, that's the way it works, and I'm aware of that, however, Wikipedia deleted that page, thus removing all attrition. Because that was true, I didn't see a problem with the copy and paste, either way, I attributed the original to Ched in a hidden comment. Thanks for the merge, however, as I wouldn't have been able to do it myself! KoshVorlon 11:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• archived thoughts
• an acceptable Wikipedia:Arbcom accountability - any member can be removed or sanctioned by community consensus
• A level 1 Arbitration Oversight committee of 5 people with high election percentages.
• A level 2 "pool" of arbitrators to hear cases (60% or higher ratification). Members are selected/volunteer hear a couple cases per year.
• see also: [1] and associated links
• archived post: link [2]

Your comments

Hey, Ched,
I know we don't know each other but I've been reading your comments around on Wikipedia today and see your frustration. I also noticed that lately you mainly post to User talk pages and Wikipedia-space pages. Maybe participating in a WikiProject or on a article collaboration might bring back the Wikipedia spirit. I realize this is unasked for advice but I know last year when I spent most of my time on noticeboards, I became quite depressed about the project and only an extended WikiBreak turned my cynical attitude around. I don't do much content creation but I have an enormous Watchlist and check out lots of pages in the Article-space to see how they are doing. Be well, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You have a good heart Liz, and I appreciate that. You're probably right - when I start saying what I really think, that's likely not a good thing. — Ched :  ?  00:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I tend to think the opposite. If you're someplace where you can't say what you think, something is clearly wrong with that place. Wikipedia shouldn't be like an abusive relationship...yet all too often for too many people that seems to be exactly what it is. Intothatdarkness 15:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree Into, but yesterday I lost my temper, and I don't like that feeling. For that I am sorry; both to Salvio and to the community. Perhaps if the "scope" had been presented at the beginning rather than at the end of the evidence phase; I would have reacted differently. It "has the appearance of", and what-not. I do know how to be tactful, but I reacted too quickly yesterday, and I'm disappointed in myself. I think perhaps I should take some time off though. — Ched :  ?  17:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Jehochman:. I removed it. If I tried to refactor, then any apology would not appear to be sincere, and I honestly am sorry for how I expressed myself. Other than that - I consider myself restricted to here for a while. — Ched :  ?  22:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 17, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Neelix/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Amortias (T)(C) 20:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have anything beyond what I linked to at the request: (community discussion: [3] and Arb motion: [4]. If anything else is required of me, feel free to drop a note here, or ping me; and I will do my best to comply. — Ched :  ?  20:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

They must really like you because for some reason you're listed along with Neelix as an "involved party" at the case on ArbCom —Мандичка^YO 😜 20:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I was the one that filed the request, and that's been a standard operating procedure in the past. When things become circular, I have often tried to do my best to cut the Gordian Knot (especially after reviewing Arb discussion, I felt that the majority of them preferred to hear this) . My belief is that it was going to end up there eventually, so I simply moved things along. I did so with the understanding that I would be a listed party. — Ched :  ?  20:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Ohhhh good for you. I couldn't figure out why you were on there! Thanks. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Archived thoughts
• All evidence I had was presented in my statement - I don't plan to be active in this.

Neelix Arbitration case

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above

This case was opened to address the behavior of Neelix (talk · contribs), a long-time editor and administrator. Neelix has subsequently resigned as an administrator and acknowledged that he may not regain administrator status without a new, successful request for adminship.[5]. In addition, an extensive community discussion on the incidents noticeboard has resulted in a one-year topic ban from Neelix's creating redirects.

Under these circumstances, this case is closed without further action. The restriction already imposed at ANI remains in force. Neelix is strongly counseled to take the concerns expressed by the community into account in his future editing, and cautioned that he may be subject to additional sanctions if problems recur.

Discuss This

For the Arbitration Committee Amortias (T)(C) 23:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

archive note

seen.

Identification to WMF

[6] — Ched :  ?  18:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

A big change from what I had to do earlier this year, which was send in a scan of my passport. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 19:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I would not have felt comfortable doing that. I think at one time I sent info to User:FloNight long ago (2008(?) that would identify me. IIRC, at the time she was on Arbcom (something I trusted at the time). This however, was simply verifying an email address for the most part. There are a few others who I've sent info to as well, but that's another topic. Anyway - best of luck in the election, you can count on my support. :-) — Ched :  ?  19:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I chose passport because it has a birthday but no address. As for other information, please send me your bank account number, mothers maiden name, and the first school you attended as a child. Thanks for the support, but what we need is more candidates. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 19:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If it were a "pool" of candidates where one would only have to deal with one or two cases per year, it might be different. Given the current environment though - I'm not sure who will be inclined. I'd email you my birthday, address, and phone number - along with the origins of the name "Ched" - but that would be about it. :-) — Ched :  ?  19:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to add to this

Ched, please feel free to add to this. It's the Arbacct page you started . I kept your bullet points, including the bullet point I suggested and have been enlarging on them (not too much, after all, we don't want TLDR :) ). Feel free to come by and add stuff in! KoshVorlon 19:19, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, and for your efforts; I truly do wish you success in this. To be honest, I really don't have much of a stomach for anything drama related, much less arb related. <placeholder for rant>. Perhaps in time, if the community ever decides to return to focus on "content" rather than "causes", AND a suitable source of site-wide management can be found. — Ched :  ?  20:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: Rationalobserver

I agree with your block of Rationalobserver, although I can see how others might not. I'm curious, why was it so easy to block RO for disruption but an admin like Neelix was immune from any block for his disruption? Any ideas? Viriditas (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2015 (U

• It has never been easy for me to block anyone. And I will say this too: I've seen a lot of what you've said. You're right in many ways. yes.. there is a "cabal" in some respect. But it's not we all support each other.. Being a part of a group who has beeen through the same things tends to bring people together. — Ched :  ?  08:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• The thing is that there aint nobody here better than anyone else. what should count is content.. — Ched :  ?  08:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• What is the rationale for this being an indef block? --John (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

[7] — Ched :  ?  21:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I see. That isn't an answer. Any objections to an unblock? --John (talk) 21:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@John: What is your rationale for an unblock? The account has been clearly involved in multiple incidents of disruption (as can be seen from the link Ched supplied), and the bad faith and personal attacks outlined at ANI were clear enough. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I see no consensus at the AN/I discussion for an indefinite block, and some questions have been raised about whether Ched was the best person to have enacted the block. I just asked him a fair question about his action and he gave a non-answer. Hence the question. I'll strengthen it slightly; it might be better all round if Ched was to unblock, and we can all wait for a consensus to develop. Blocking during an ongoing discussion isn't usually done either. Looks fishy to me, and an unblock might be best here. --John (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that User:28bytes has done the unblock. Onwards and upwards, eh? --John (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Just letting ya know. I opposed the indef block, because I believe such blocks (and sitebans) should be limited to long-term vandalizers & sock-masters. It has nothing to do with the female/male stuff. IMHO, we're all Wikipedian & thus gender-neutral. GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

to all

I DON'T CARE — Ched :  ?  23:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yes you do, Ched, I know you do. This will all blow over, as these little storms usually do. But I know how hard it is to keep cool in such situations. Maybe I should set up a Ched Sandbox for Article Creation again. Take care, Drmies (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Don't give up. Giano (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps it's time to revive your user infobox "Je suis ..."? We sang a piece for peace composed in Paris. It's also about death. We had no idea how significant it came to be. Please bear with us, - I don't want to add your name to the list of the despised and rejected who have just given up, where I could gladly remove Drmies and Giano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Ched, this is a shame. What you did was 100% right and you should in no way feel wrong (although frustrated, I'll grant you). Take a couple of days, sit back with the popcorn, and once all this has blown over, start afresh. You're a great admin and an even better editor. Cassianto^Talk 09:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No idea what this is about, but I care about good admins and about Wikipedia. Try this: User:Dweller/Suggestions for wikistressed editors --Dweller (talk) 11:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• I fully support "For grizzled old hands", item 6. My name is not Dweller and I approve this message. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• This too shall pass. Yash! 12:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• I guess I missed something (please, no one link to it!), but I've found a month off will do wonders. Cheers, Ched. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• For goodness sake, this isn't a reason to retire, Ched. Since 2011/12, I've gone through enough 'hurdles' to make anyone else retire, but I'm still here. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Take the time you need, Ched, "teh wiki" will still be here and your solid gut instincts and common sense will always be needed. Just remember not to wade into shark-infested waters without backup. Montanabw^(talk) 03:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
• I really don't understand why people encourage others to return to abusive situations. If you feel it's time to go, you should go. NOTHING here is worth serious life stress. Intothatdarkness 16:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you all for any and all kind words. I will be keeping this account active until after I vote. Afterwards I suspect I will abandon this account for some time. I was once told "you'll be known by the company you keep", and at this time I no longer have a desire to be part of site management here. If I see a typo, I will fix it. If I think I can improve on content, I will. This is in no way a reflection on the people in this thread, or many other fine content editors; it's just that I'd prefer to herd to myself for a while. As always - best to all. — Ched :  ?  22:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

One day ...

and one day only. My email is open. Anyone wishing to hear my views of ACE may now ask. — Ched :  ?  02:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Factss

I said a LONG time ago that GGTF was a big mistake. History has proven that I was right about that. Any efforts to get women to join Wikipedia is a good thing ... OFF wiki. Where should I start? "Task Force"? Does that sound like a collaborative idea? I think not. Should I make a joke about "Women's Membership Drive"?

Fact: Any time you try to take a group of people and push them to any sort of agenda - it is going to alienate all those who are not part of that group. If there were a "White men task force" ... how would that be accepted. A black Muslim task force?

When you try to isolate ANY group of people, even with the best of intentions, you alienate others. Wikipedia fell down a slippery slope. The entire sad situation has been tearing this project apart for more than a year. Arbcom has been trying to deal with it - the result? Try to pin the blame on individuals. The result? Even MORE distention. Where does it stop?

• It stops when we stop assigning a race, creed, gender, or any other profile to an account

You folks do what you will - I said a while back "I don't care". There really is a real life 'out there' .. I thought the idea with Wikipedia was to document it; not try to influence it. — Ched :  ?  06:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that content is what matters. I also wish people would be kinder to each other here ("civility" is not the same as kindness... some of the cruelest people on wiki can twist the knife with nary a "bad" word...). If that was the focus, then there would be less need for identity politics. Montanabw^(talk) 09:20, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I think you are right. — Ched :  ?  09:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The way to encourage any under-represented group to participate in Wikipedia is to ensure that we write our encyclopedia in a way that does not belittle the issues they care about; and to do our best to be kind to other editors, regardless of who they are. --RexxS (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

↑ this. — Ched :  ?  21:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

While a task force may not have been the best idea, the general demographics of editors on Wikipedia don't represent the English-speaking world, however you want to slice it. Also, coverage of subjects reflect the interests of the editors here so we have a ton of coverage of anime as compared to sociology. That is not pointing the finger of blame, this is a volunteer effort and editors work on the articles that interest them no matter who they are.

I am not saying that it is possible to get perfect representation and adequate coverage of all important subjects on Wikipedia. But I think the future of Wikipedia lies in expanding content beyond what is most familiar to those in Western society and that effort is aided when we have a more diverse editor-base, who have interests and knowledge that is less common in, say, the UK, US and Australia. As far as I can see, the GGTF was not trying to take anything away from anyone, just expand on subjects that are not developed as well on Wikipedia. Who can object to more coverage of under-represented subjects? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem with GGTF is that it turned into a walled garden for just a few people who claimed to speak for an entire gender. In the process they created virtually no content and spent all their time rearranging deck chairs and, frankly, whining about how their lack of social skills was somehow a big bad anti-female conspiracy. (Seriously, I have pretty strong feminist credentials and when I (a woman editor) got told I was "just some man telling us what to do" they lost me for good!) Meanwhile, other users, notably the people at WP:Women in Red, just rolled up their sleeves and got to work, in the process creating a welcoming and safe space for women and men who supported content creation as well. My take is pretty simple: If you build it, they will come. If you talk about building it, it will be bogged down in turn and infighting. That's why I keep saying that WP needs to assist the content creators more, as without them, there would be no encyclopedia. Montanabw^(talk) 20:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

yep. — Ched :  ?  21:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

GGTF was hijacked by a group of political feminists. WP should not be about politics. We can improve content/coverage and, indeed, we can even if desired amend notability guidelines etc to reduce the impact of things such as the glass ceiling and "history is about the deeds of great men". GGTF and the various spin-off mailing lists, both public and private, have in large part caused the problem they now rail against. And they do so using a massive campaign of lies, innuendo and downright libel (pretty much anyone who speaks out is a "misogynist" or "sexist", which simply does not stand up). Sue Gardner was an absolute disaster with her attempts to promote diversity etc - witness the horrendous effects of the WP India program - and I put much of the blame on her for creating and/or highlighting this mess, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but Sitush, in real life *I* am also a "political" feminist, so I don't agree that was the problem. (LOL) The problem was that the GGTF was hijacked by a couple of idiots, a status that transcends race, creed, gender or orientation. As for the rest, I don't think it helps to point fingers at individuals on any side (and in my opinion, some individuals were set up to be scapegoated). Given the on- and off-wiki shit that hit me since I dared to file a RfA, (most of the on-wiki stuff has been oversighted) and some of which was gender-based - the first time in 9 years on wiki I've had to deal with that type of harassment - I can assure you that there IS something of a problem, though the 16-year-old-troll-in-mommy's-basement type is less intimidating to me (having passed the half-century mark) than it might be to someone younger and more vulnerable. The problem is that the WMF and ArbCom are wasting all their time chasing people like Corbett and other folks who occasionally pop off with a few bad words, while people like those at the GG issue skate by and TPTB are oblivious to the very real harm (including an off-wiki ememies' list) they do to many editors who are here to build the encyclopedia. Montanabw^(talk) 22:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Today

St Cecilia's Day

A Boy was Born

Music in your ears and heart! (in a box) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Note

Ched, you're probably not in the mood to hear this right now, but I see this as going over the line. If you're trying to convince people of something you're not going to do achieve that with insults and ad-hominems. Could you please take a couple minutes and refactor that? ~Awilley (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ok - I removed it. — Ched :  ?  20:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I wasn't talking about the entire section, just the one diff. But thank you anyway ~Awilley (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Meh - I admit I was venting out of frustration. If people want to know what I think, it's not hard to find. It's not like anything I say would actually make a difference. It is what it is - I can't change it. I've seen people talk about that whole "Super Mario" problem - but I think they look in the wrong direction. Once elected - there's no accountability. God grant me the serenity and all. — Ched :  ?  22:34, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 2015 Colorado Springs shootings for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2015 Colorado Springs shootings is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Colorado Springs shootings until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TrueCRaysball | ^#RaysUp 05:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find that the bulk of information will be kept, and Wikipedia's past history can support the concept of articles such as this are kept. I'll review multiple sources tomorrow, and will keep the AfD in mind. — Ched :  ?  05:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: shooting vs. shootings

Hi Ched. There were no discussions before I moved 2015 Colorado Springs shootings to 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. To me, the move appeared to be uncontroversial since the subject was clearly about one incident and therefore the use of the plural "shootings" appeared to be in error. My apologies if this has caused any trouble or confusion. – Zntrip 03:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It did not occur to you that 12 people were shot? You spoke to none of the 15-20 editors who were developing the article? Interesting. Thank you for responding. — Ched :  ?  09:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, there was nothing controversial about the move (see Virginia Tech shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Charleston church shooting, etc.) so there was no need to discuss with anyone. I'm sorry if you feel slighted, but that was not my intention. – Zntrip 19:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually the whole thing was inevitable Zntrip (see:[8]). And I apologize for coming across as harsh about it. — Ched :  ?  19:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And you were right (I was wrong) about "shooting" vs. "shootings". At least as it pertains to our Wiki standards. — Ched :  ?  19:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It's perfectly appropriate, in my opinion, to ask an editor to explain the rational behind a page move. In hindsight, I really should have dropped a note on the talk page explaining it. Regards, – Zntrip 03:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Sidebar: It's such a sad and tragic irony that anyone who stands on the "pro-life" side of the issue would do such a thing. — Ched :  ?  19:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You should state you are an Admin on your userpage

You should state you are an Admin on your userpageVictoriaGrayson^Talk 20:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not something I'm particularly proud of, but let me have a quick look at policy as it is currently stated. — Ched :  ?  20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, it's not required. All editors should be treated the same, right? Just like one shouldn't put on a seatbelt when a police car is near, one need not be more careful around a Wikipedia admin than a non-admin (if that's what you're worried about, Virginia). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Police are required to identify themselves.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Notwithstanding that it is common practice, there is no requirement to identify as an administrator on your userpage if you do not wish to. Further to this administrators are not police officers. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I've been called a lot of things - but "common" probably isn't real high on the list kelapstick. :-) — Ched :  ?  21:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

VictoriaGrayson, law enforcement are not required to be identified as law enforcement when they are acting as civilians and are not working or acting in the line of duty. Regardless, my analogy was meant to give you an example of why it's important to be consistent behavior-wise rather than being on your best-behavior when someone who can give you a ticket or slap handcuffs on you (or sanction or block you) is around. Admins are largely mopper-uppers with special "powers", not Wiki-cops. If you don't get that, well -- I'm not going to go further as it could be seen as a personal attack (even if it wouldn't be meant as such). How long have you been here (long enough to already know this, right)? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• @VictoriaGrayson: - Do I come across as some sort of "enforcement" or "authority" voice? I certainly don't mean to. I'll be honest, I'm not real enthusiastic about being lumped into any particular "group". I'd rather people just talked to me as an equal. Is there a reason you'd like me to identify myself as an "Administrator"? — Ched :  ?  21:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The only group I'd lump you into, Ched, is that of eminently decent fellow :) — Huntster (t @ c) 21:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the laughs

That is NOT what Cruz said - if you're going post reports, post them accurately please.

Yes, because Cruz is always concerned about accuracy.[9] Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• post
• reference

— Ched :  ?  22:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: if you feel I am wrong - then feel free to restore. I won't be reverting. — Ched :  ?  22:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ACE2015

Guerillero was talking to the IP about his guide, not to you about yours. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

OK - thank you. I wasn't sure, so just decided to note that I saw it without commenting further. — Ched :  ?  23:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Outing if linking alt. accounts?

Could you have a look at this bundle of AN/I laughs and advise a user if it is permissible to link an account with declared (then undeclared) alt. accounts with the editor's permission? To me, it's a bit of a no-brainer, but the individual wants to hear it from an admin for some odd reason -- samtar ^whisper 18:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a link to where it is "declared"? — Ched :  ?  21:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I've just checked "what links here" on the alt account—which isn't declared, but is not exactly hard to find—and there aren't any incoming links, which makes me assume there's no formal declaration anywhere. There's potentially a COI issue should he ever send the autobiography he's using an IP to draft in userspace live, but in the absence of that I'd strongly advise against making the link explicit unless he specifically requests it. The alt account in his real name hasn't edited since 2010 as far as I can tell, and isn't under any kind of sanction, so there's no socking issue. ‑ Iridescent 21:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Iridescent. I absolutely DREAD getting anywhere near US Political articles on Wiki. — Ched :  ?  21:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There is something fishy going on here—I have NEVER edited under any other account --- having ONLY edited Wikipedia under my IP address prior to establishing my Professor JR account, and then only under that account (from the same IP address). certainly doesn't tally with either the 2010 account, or the multiple IP addresses used. (Although the IP addresses aren't declared, they're clearly the same person, unless he's remarkably tolerant of allowing IP editors to write content in his sandboxes and to make additions to his user page.) While he's clearly lying, I can't see anything that actually rises to the level of abuse here. ‑ Iridescent 21:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting. Well - there's certainly a strong consensus to ban the user from the Hillary article - and discretionary sanctions are available (unless that's one of the recent flood of vacated items). But - DGG (edited: Actually it was Fred B's post I was reading) also makes a point that there are others from an alternate view who are not exactly editing optimally as well. I'm half tempted to put the "management" pages (aka: Arbcom, AN, AN/I, etc) back on my watchlist. To be honest - I suspect there is some sort of "US Politics 2 case" down the road - perhaps narrowed to another title though. I do very much appreciate being kept in the loop, but I expect to bow out of all things related to disruption by the end of the month. Given my recent outbursts - I think it best to work my way back to articles. Perhaps starting the 2015 Colorado Springs shooting article wasn't exactly a "quiet" start, but I have a few boring/historical articles in mind too. I may follow along, although I'm not inclined to jump in right now. — Ched :  ?  23:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

wp:an

[10] didn't come out quite right. NE Ent 15:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree - and I'm open to suggestions. — Ched :  ?  15:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

ACE 2015

I will be posting my own supports for Arbcom shortly. — Ched :  ?  14:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Discovery

Not going to happen. Offwiki discussions happen by the hundreds for each case. Most of it is on their own mail list, which is of course offwiki. I've emailed Arbs on many occasions, although I never try to tell them what to do (that would be pointless) and instead opine about larger philosophical issues that are impacted by the case, a perspective shared by some in the community. Sometimes I might point out a mistake with a diff, but that is rare. I use it as a chance to be helpful, not critical. I save critical comments for onwiki, where it belongs. Some reply, some don't. The problem is, you can't filter out what is good and bad contact even if you had a list. If there was some wrongdoing in a discussion, they would just leave it out of the list altogether since no one has the ability to subpoena or search their hard drives. It isn't verifiable. And we both know that most improper communication happens via IRC anyway, so anything that they released would be useless. This case is a giant thorn in the paw of Wikipedia: We just want it pulled out so the healing can begin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is important that every voice be heard. The fact that you listened to me means a lot to me. Thank you Dennis. You're good people - and i appreciate and value that. — Ched :  ?  19:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

A few thoughts

• 1.) Blessed are the peacemakers. Matthew 5:9 (28bytes and Dennis Brown)
• 2.)

Q: What do you call a boomerang that doesn't come back?

A: A stick.

— Ched :  ?  12:19, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Identifiction

Hi Ched. In response to your message at VictoriaGrayson's talkpage, I'm interested in those identification-codes, like

• Registered 1/8/2014; 5167 edits; reviewer, autoconfirmed
• A reviewer, 1 year 10 months old, with 5,167 edits. Last edited 31 minutes ago. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

One of them can be found at: User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js. I put mine in my monobook.js file because I use monobook as my "skin" for wiki. ping: Joshua Jonathan - I'll try to find the other one a bit later. Good luck. — Ched :  ?  14:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

That one works; great. Looking forward to the other one; thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: Glad it worked for you. OK - I think User:MastCell/user-rights.js was the other one I used to import user rights etc. If you're not sure how it works - User:MastCell is very open to helping people. — Ched :  ?  22:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank! Nice typo I made in the header, by the way. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that one works too. Thanks! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 28, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Lankiveil for the notice, - I will .. consider my options. — Ched :  ?  14:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Today

enlightenment

thank you

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

A most joyous Sunday to you Gerda! Actually I do have this, and the poorly considered "troll" comments (which all speaks to being objective) - but I'm hoping someone else will submit those. — Ched :  ?  18:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually Gerda - this is a situation where I agree fully with Salvio. A motion would have been the better course of action. The evidence presented by Dave is undeniable. A full case only presents the opportunity for further discord. At some point we need to think about what is best for the project, and put aside the agendas, campaigns, and grudges of years now gone. — Ched :  ?  00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean the Kevin case, - did you know that I just said (Eric's talk) we should all ignore it. - I found your comments on the other also illuminating! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Just thought...

I'd say hi! It's been a while :) Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 00:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey - great to see you around - replied on your talk. — Ched :  ?  01:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

How do i deal with this?

IN all honesty, i'm getting burned out. I don't have the stomach for such heavy insult, and false claims. I really just want to edit. I am doing my absolute best to be calm. And i'm not mad, or angry, or want to lash out. I'm more upset and disconnected. But why do i get the feeling this isn't about me proving myself, and just me submitting to it? There are people I've never heard of, who make it seem like they know exactly who i am (at least in Wikipedia). Am i exaggerating? Like even though Wikipedia is a place where everyone can edit and improve, there's always a part of it that still reminds me "its the internet".

I'm not trying to take any of it personally. I'm really not. But with how it transpire, there's not a shred of positivity. No matter how i explain myself, people will stick with their initial beliefs. Am i exaggerating? Am i being overly-sensitive? In the past i was constantly called "Over-dramatic". So i don't know how to respond to these situations. I thought i was taking an active approach to just clarifying. I wasn't trying to argue with anyone. I was just criticized for responding too many times, yet other members took just as much to respond. I just don't understand the logic.

Do you think i should go to Arbcom? Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No, .. NO ... NO do not approach Arbcom. Take 24 hours - don't reply to anything unless asked a specific question. Get a good night's sleep. Enjoy a day doing something you like. I will take a look at the whole thing in more depth, and try to come up with a reply that might help. It's so SO very easy to feel very alone in situations like this - but remember that this is just the internet. Talk to friends and family - and find the good things in life. I will try to find something to help. — Ched :  ?  03:45, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to give up. If i had to choose between wanting my topic back or not having negative ideas spread around Wikipedia, i choose the latter. I'm burned. I don't want to fight anyone about how they perceive me. I'm not trying to. All i'm trying to do is clarify. I wont respond anymore. Lucia Black (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I do understand your feelings - Wikipedia can be a very disheartening and unforgiving place. Just take a break - and I'll get in touch with you tomorrow evening (I'm in the eastern part of the USA). There's a lot of good folk here too, it's just a matter of finding them. :-) — Ched :  ?  03:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Lucia Black (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I gave it an honest chance. I really did. But Wikipedia is running me to my weaknesses, not my strengths. And i think the permanent block should resume. Its not healthy to deal with this. I've never seen a single editor be put to the things i've been put into. Nor is there a shining example of someone who had to overcome such an ordeal. Lucia Black (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Lucia Black: Sorry to hear you're feeling like this - I'm not aware of what's been going on, but should you wish to talk please feel free to drop me a message or email me. To echo Ched, Wikipedia really can be a disheartening place, but good editors (and good people) are around -- samtar ^whisper 11:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: I rather just quit Wikipedia. I'm trying my best to branch out in other areas. And yet....i can't. Lucia Black (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Lucia Black: well the offer is there should you wish to try to talk about it. Perhaps drop Wikipedia for the time being and enjoy the yuletime festivities? In my opinion, food and Christmas > Wikipedia any day -- samtar ^whisper 12:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: I don't celebrate christmas, which makes this time of year (for me at least) relatively normal. Lucia Black (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry I wasn't able to be online for a few days - doesn't look like there's much I can do right now Lucia. I'll check in early in January to see how things are going. — Ched :  ?  22:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Its fine. i don't really think anyone can help me in this particular situation. Lucia Black (talk) 00:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

	Seasons Greetings
	Christmas! Christmas, everywhere, on every talk page, I do dispair Seasons being greeted and Wikibreaks told, but still time for a little more editing, for being WP:BOLD! So go on, go forth and enjoy beyond concern Your Wiki will be waiting for when you return. Buster Seven Talk 20:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

This card was designed by User:Samtar

This is possibly the finest edit summary in the history of Wikipedia. ‑ Iridescent 17:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Iridescent: I've, err, learnt my lesson.. Just assuming [[File:Christmastree.png]] is an actual Christmas tree because it looks like one was a minor mistake.. -- samtar ^whisper 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Why thank you Buster7 - I hope you have a very Merry Christmas, Great New Year, or just enjoy whatever holiday this season brings you. Good catch Iridescent - gotta love it. And Thank you Samtar - I hope you have a very wonderful holiday season. — Ched :  ?  22:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

MarnetteD|Talk is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b}} to your friends' talk pages.

Make sure to click on both pictures to see them full size Ched as they will give you a chuckle. May your 2016 be full of joy and special times. MarnetteD|Talk 04:48, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I love them MarnetteD - thank you SO much. I hope you have an absolutely wonderful holiday season as well. :-) — Ched :  ?  22:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Ched

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:13, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you sir. ... and I hope you have a wonderful holiday. — Ched :  ?  02:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to all

I wish you ALL a very merry and joyous time. There are so many great folks here on wiki, that it would be an injustice for me to try to deliver personal greetings individually - simply because I would invariably miss a few of you great folks. I know that this is just a small part of "Teh Internetz" - but there truly are times when you come into my home and my heart. I know there are times when I make myself the fool, and I piss-off even my closest friends. Life is so very short - don't bow to anyone but yourself and your own beliefs. Be happy. — Ched :  ?  02:23, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Amen! And to non-religious folk, Hear! Hear! Huzzah! Right on! Well said! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Liz ... I hope you have a wonderful holiday season. — Ched :  ?  00:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

ϢereSpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15c}} to your friends' talk pages.

I like that WereSpielChequers - thank you so much. I hope you have a wonderful holiday season as well. — Ched :  ?  00:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

		Happy Christmas!
		Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 17:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you John. To be honest? - I didn't even know you knew that I existed. I am truly flattered that such an esteemed colleague would drop by. Thank you - and I hope you and all your family and friends have a most fantastic holiday season. — Ched :  ?  00:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Wishing you a Charlie Brown Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄
	Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk)

Aww (real name redacted) Montanabw - thank you so much. I hope you and yours have a very amazing time. — Ched :  ?  00:14, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

LMFAO - I applaud you for being the most assassin collective group ever to grace the halls of wiki. Ya shoulda smacked Krill for being a total asshole. whatever -— Ched :  ?  02:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

may our mouth be full of laughter, a comment from a psalm, with music 290 years old today, Forget arbcom (I didn't keep that on my talk), and celebrate Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you WV - I hope you have a great new year as well. — Ched :  ?  23:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Gnu Ear Greetings

	Hopp(y) Gnu Ear
	Hoppy Gnu Ear to you! Hoppy Gnu Ear to you! Be Safe! Buster Seven Talk 06:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Buster Seven - I enjoyed that. I hope you have a good one too. — Ched :  ?  23:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

(fix ping for @Buster7: — Ched :  ?  23:47, 31 December 2015 (UTC))

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!    –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 15:23, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Davey2010 - very much appreciated. I hope you had a great Christmas, and I hope you have a wonderful New Year. — Ched :  ?  19:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Yeah it was alright thanks :), I hope you had a great Crimbo and I hope you have a brilliant New Year :) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 19:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ched!

Happy New Year!

Ched,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you Davey - I hope you have a wonderful new year as well. — Ched :  ?  17:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ched, Hope you have a great day too :) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 20:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Best wishes for the holidays...

		2016 Season's Greetings
		Luise von Anhalt-Dessau have come to you with fruits, to wish you a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! Hafspajen (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kevin Gorman

Hi there,

You are receiving this message as you have been involved with the Kevin Gorman Arbitration case. I just wanted to let you know that the case timetable has been changed - evidence now needs to be presented by 22 December 2015, the workshop closes 31 December 2015, and the Proposed decision is targeted to be posted 3 January 2016.

I would therefore be grateful if you could submit any additional evidence as soon as possible.

For the Arbitration Committee, -- Mdann52 (talk) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Mdann52 and DeltaQuad - I applaud this and I think it is a good thing - BUT, this is a courtesy that should be extended to ALL members of the community that are brought into cases. Doing something like this selectively may give the impression that some folks receive preferential treatment. — Ched :  ?  10:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm definitely willing to consider it as other cases come up. It all depends on complexities and level of drama. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 10:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

dream

Did you know that Max Reger composed "in new simplicity" Unser lieben Frauen Traum, about a dream of Mary of a tree growing in her?

(ec) I don't know. How about not informing anybody, - those interested will watch. The notices on talk pages are rather food for talk page watchers. On how many pages did they read that case "Vested contributors" opened? Kind of a prejudice in the title, multiplied. When the title was changed, the wrong one wasn't deleted but repeated, - still had an effect of creeping into the minds of casual observers. I archived "pride and prejudice" once I escaped it but it's not gone. - Arbitration needs to look at arbitration and especially its "enforcement", seriously. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

But can you do that in cases where you're not the drafting arb? Does it all come down to some 'luck-of-the-draw' situation as to who someone gets as a drafting arb? — Ched :  ?  10:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Gerda Arendt, I was discussing the context of the message; not the message delivery itself. It's all very confusing to me now though - as it seems that now Kevin does NOT want an expedited case. One truly must wonder at it all. — Ched :  ?  17:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I saw that you were discussing context, but could not help thinking of the load these messages carry, in general. I kept those for AE1 on my talk, with derived discussions including dangerous thoughts, - it's where amnesty was mentioned first. I changed all "vested contributors" in headers, don't want such a prejudice on my talk, not even archived. All so pompous, anyway. I also archived the closing of the chapter of my restrictions. Off to more laughter, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The best I can figure is that a longer case allows more time to muddy the water.[11] Perhaps I misunderstand WP:NDP, as I had assumed it was related to the real life hiring practices of the WMF. It truly has become so difficult to understand what is and what is not acceptable here. — Ched :  ?  17:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm. Sort of rushing this through during a major holiday period might be inconvenient to some. (Not me - I am steering well clear.) - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I can easily imagine that it would be best if I did likewise. (steer clear) — Ched :  ?  18:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely harder when your not the drafter, but I can definitely suggest it. How far that goes...your right I have no control over that. As for the NDP, it does not apply to Wikipedians, as per a statement from Luis @ WMF Legal (though he's been promoted since). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That policy page needs to be changed. Because it explicitly reads as though it applies to users, short of viewing the talk page, one would never know this. That's not to say it (or a similar one) shouldn't apply to users, but at present it doesn't. --kelapstick^{(on the run)} 10:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your time and replies. I'm not sure why this was brought into the entire situation to begin with; although I could hazard a guess. I'm personally not going to edit a foundation page - I manage to get myself into enough hot-water as it is. I wish you both a happy holiday season, and the best of luck working together in the new year. — Ched :  ?  15:40, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's worth considering that the way WMF treats its employees (for example in terms of its NDP) isn't a bad example of how users might feel they would wish to be treated. I don't have any problem with treating users equally regardless of their race, colour, gender, religion, national origin, age, disability, or lawful sexual orientation. On the other hand I have bugger-all tolerance of stupidity, thoughtlessness, arrogance and selfishness. That's my character flaw, but I'm guessing I'm not the only one. --RexxS (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Since I can't tell who someone is on the internet - I tend to treat people the way they treat me. I'm very much like you RexxS when it comes to a low tolerance of those things - and also adding being deceptive and/or being lied to. — Ched :  ?  21:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• [12]

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016

peace bell

Thank you, Ched, for inspiration and support, with my review, the peace bell by Yunshui, and best wishes, returning yours! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

That is very very nice Gerda; and I join you in wishing peace a prosperous and strong year in 2016 — Ched :  ?  23:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Click on bell for the soft sound of peace (and jest) ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy Belated New Year, Ched!

Happy New Year!

Ched,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Ekabhishek^talk 04:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thank you Ekabhishek, and I hope you have a joy filled year as well. Thank you also for your powerful and wise thoughts about "wiki-karma" and "what I prefer" on your page. Sadly, I have often failed to live up to such noble concepts; however, I will try to do better in this coming year. I wish you peace and happiness. — Ched :  ?  10:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Ched, hope you continue to pursue the ideals you hold dear to your heart. Thanks for the appreciation. (: --Ekabhishek^talk 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ekabhishek ... I'm not sure how or why you come into my life at this point - but I do trust it, and I am very grateful for it. If you speak - I will listen. — Ched :  ?  04:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ched, I'm glad I reconnected with you, let's make it more than once a year. :D You can find more of my thoughts here --Ekabhishek^talk 05:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Userrights

A recent photo of Ched, preparing to reference the History of Nascar.

Hey Ched, congratulations on your de-adminship! I have added reviewer, rollbacker, and autopatrolled flags to your account, I don't see any reason you shouldn't have them. Let me know if you don't want them and I will flip the off switch for you. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Kelapstick, that's very gracious of you. I will try to put them to good use by improving and creating some readable content for the project. — Ched :  ?  00:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You lucky guy, now you're just a peon. Good thing too as I'm sure if you hadn't resigned, you would have blocked me. :-) Seriously, my friend, I hope all is going well with you and yours.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Bbb, I'm hoping 2016 is an improvement over the last half of 2015 - but either way I'm going to pay more attention to the good things in life a bit more. If I ever feel I have the energy and desire to help with good site management again, I'll see what my options are at that time. For now, I have the basics down to get some old historical stuff added to the project. I'll need to brush up on my {{sfn}} stuff to get my "History of NASCAR" ready - but it should be time worth working on. Encyclopedia style writing doesn't come naturally to me, but even though I lack certain social graces and high-born entitlements, I think I can learn the basics. Thanks for the kind words. :-) — Ched :  ?  03:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know about not having social graces Ched, you look pretty fine in the picture on the right. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Haha .. very good. I like that. It reminds me of the Monopoly guy. — Ched :  ?  04:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to drop the admin rights to play with content you know, just need the motivation to ignore them. In my case, I've been writing articles about women scientists - I think I'm on my 6th this year. It's far more fun than fighting at arbcom, and I've needed to get back into writing for a while! Worm^TT(talk) 11:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm on my first FA-to-be for the year (with Thoughtfortheday), after three GAs. Ched, did you know that I wrote many GAs last year just to reserve the right to make a certain editorial choice? I liked it so much that I keep going ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your kind words, time, and input. Let me think on your words, and I'll try to formulate a proper response after I've thought a bit. — Ched :  ?  07:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• unrelated - should I comment? [13]? — Ched :  ?  07:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC) (resolved)

• Gerda - I think that's great that you do so much GA and FA work. Thank you. I'm sorry that I can't join in, but I'm just not interested in the trinkets and baubles. I like to work with folks one-on-one, but I'm not good at the political stuff that's needed for all that. If I manage to write anything worthwhile, I'll consider a PR. OK? :-) — Ched :  ?  05:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• Dave, yes - I know. For me it is about getting up every day and looking in the mirror and trying to be honest about who I am. I've been troubled for a while. A few months ago I lost my temper, and spoke to Salvio in the familiar, and did so without having a previous relationship. I could make excuses, but the truth is that I stepped over the line, and he didn't. Perhaps it would be different if I had lost my temper with you, or Eric, or Drmies, or any of dozens of others that I've established a relationship with. Yes, I did a 72 hour (block?) and only responded only to one direct question. I could make the argument that "well, he's an arb - so he should be able to take it"> No - we are ALL human beings who deserve respect. Yes, I did apologize. And as much as I stand by the meaning of what I said - I can't condone HOW I said it. If I can't have "trust" in myself - how can I ask the community to have trust in me? When time and energy permits - I'd like to piddle away at a few articles, and talk to a few folks ... for now. It's not that I hold to the belief that admins must be above cussing (no offense to IHTS). It's about me feeling that I "broke". (and to be honest? .. there's a few current admins who make ashamed to be part of the group.) I promise - if I do ever feel again like being part of site management, and I have the energy and desire to do that, I will look at my options. :-) — Ched :  ?  05:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

From what I've noticed...

you're a great admin. Come back when you're refreshed. In the meantime, can I not-so-modestly recommend: User:Dweller/Suggestions for wikistressed editors. It's a little dated, but I still find it's useful when I've had enough! --Dweller (talk) 10:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Dweller, I definitely consider that high praise indeed. It's been quite a while since I read that, and certainly worth another read through. Thanks. — Ched :  ?  08:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Horses

I wanted to sign and found I did already ;) - how to gently pass it to Lynn? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I am somewhat aware of that issue, but didn't feel capable of providing a solution. I'd imagine it would take a lot of time and energy to bring those two sides together in harmony. Right now I'm only able to add a wee small bit here and there, so I don't have the wherewithal to do it by myself. I do hope it will happen though. — Ched :  ?  08:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Harmony is a distant goal. Gentler words to each other would be a first. I found good advice from B: ""grant each other the presumption that we are acting in good faith", but how to tell people without seemingly lecturing them? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

B is a wise person indeed. I agree that harmony would take work. I don't have an answer for your question, because I can't answer it for myself. I do hope it can be worked out though. — Ched :  ?  14:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)One avenue might be to consider the les-than-collaborative benefit of comments and edit summaries such as these: [14], [15], [16], [17] and especially [18]. But perhaps now is not the time for discussion of behavior, so long as discussion of content takes place without further personal attacks or edit-warring. Montanabw^(talk) 01:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mon - I don't know what to tell you. There's a sadness there - a bitterness; and it's a wall that I couldn't break through. When I saw that "uncivil" faux claim/comment at SL on Gerda's page? - I knew I was out of my league ... even if I tried to help. I don't often make generalizations - but I will say this: Some/Many women have a strength inside that most/many men can not even understand; in fact, only a few of us even see it. So this isn't a situation where I could help with.

I know that when you spend more than 8, 10 hours on an article - it's almost like that article takes on a life of its own ... becomes your baby so to speak. So I do understand that you want what is best for the article. It's hard to let go and let it become tainted. I do understand that. I don't know how to replace bitterness with kindness in other people Mon. I have no doubt that "good faith" and intentions are there - and I know you would welcome any friendly collaboration, but I don't know how to tell you to get to that point.

Perhaps there's some RO residual resentment, IDK - but remember ... *I* would be considered a hostile in that topic area.

I could offer some advice on article improvement - but I have no desire to step into a hostile/tense situation right now.

• In the end - I will be here to listen. Even offer a cyber-hug ... but I can't get involved in the article as it stands right now. (*hint: the lead/lede is a bit dry - you need to capture the readers attention a bit more quickly) All my best. — Ched :  ?  03:29, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm done

i gave it an honest chance... i'm just not seeing the light at the end of tunnel. When things like this happen. i rather just be gone again. This place is just not for me Wikipedia is just like the rest of the internet, nothing more. I'm not going to ask you to ban me indefinitely again...there's no point. No one really cares. But this is me, saying "i can't do it". i just can't. Lucia Black (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry things didn't go well Lucia. I do hope you find peace and happiness in other things. Best of luck in all. — Ched :  ?  12:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Favorite Quote of the Year!

OK - it's still so very early, but THIS is one I want to preserve for posterity. (ok - I'll settle for my own talk archives):

• I've always thought arbcom clerking should be deprecated—I've never cared for the notion that the arbs are special snowflakes who can't be expected to descend from their ivory tower to maintain the dozen-or-so pages in their purview, nor for the idea of arbcom having its own private police force to stop the great unwashed saying things the Great Council of Elders might find objectionable. (Plus, as you've probably discovered by now, the position attracts more than its fair share of oddballs whom I certainly wouldn't want issuing statements or performing actions in my name.) (credit: User:Iridescent [19])

I've thought it, but have never been able to put my thoughts into words quite so well. TY. (and no offense intended to any individual clerks) — Ched :  ?  17:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Ched. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

And again

Hello, Ched. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Ched. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Your close

Hi Ched - thank you for taking the initiative here, however, in your close you mention you're closing it because there's not likely to be administrator action. I'm not sure if you're aware but the proposal was for community action, ergo, the WP:CBAN motion and the ensuing discussion and !voting. As this was a motion for community action, and the community was running 2:1 in favor of the CBAN with feedback being registered as recently as a few hours prior to your close, shutting it down does seem a little premature. I assume this is why the admins who'd previously looked at it, like Ultraexactzz, did not close it as it was a community discussion, not an appeal for admin action. LavaBaron (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Meh - I'm not particular about my actions, feel free to revert. — Ched :  ?  00:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I second LavaBaron here. Lengthy discussions which involve tens and tens of editors should not normally be closed by a non-admin (or an ex-admin). I accept that the final decision would likely be the same, i.e., close with no action (there was no community consensus for any specific action), but a non-admin closure makes it much more likely the debate will be reopened shortly, which I believe should be avoided: the purpose of ANI board is to resolve issues and not to sweep them under the carpet. Revert of a close, as you suggest, by a non-admin is a big no-no. — kashmiri ^TALK 00:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

as per USER:Kashmiri, I really don't think anything good is likely to come about out of a non admin reverting an AnI close, especially since the thread in question had to do with alleged violation of process. LavaBaron (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I said - feel free to put it back and re-open it. I did go back and read it, and the original thread was opened January 16th. The CBAN proposal began on January 24th. I just don't see a consensus there for a site ban. I have no problem with someone putting it back, and opening it back up if you disagree - and I won't contest it. BUT - since I don't think I made a mistake, I'm not going to revert myself.

Another option it to start a new thread with pointer to the archive here, and perhaps lay it out in a bit differently.

• proposal
• support
• oppose
• discussion

If you feel that *I* have done something wrong (violation of process), a thread discussing that is fine too. I came. I saw. I read. I made a call. and I'm just not going to get all worked up over it. You folks do what you feel is best, and I won't complain one iota.  :-) — Ched :  ?  02:00, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You complaining is not what I'm worried about. We are dealing with a very aggressive editor who has a long track record of dragging people to ANI just to throw it against the wall and see if something sticks. I've largely escaped his gaze in my WP career but am not willing to open myself up to a lifetime in his sights by doing anything that isn't according to the absolute letter of the law, like reverting an ANI close. And, no, I'm not "reporting" you. You made a bad decision but bad decisions aren't reportable. LavaBaron (talk) 02:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) For what it's worth, I've just read that section and I don't see any consensus for a ban either. I do think the thing was a bit confusing though, and I'd support the suggestion of starting a new discussion with a clearer layout and a ban request right from the start if you think the close was incorrect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, there was no consensus for a ban and, I believe, USER:Kashmiri doesn't think there was either. There was also no consensus for a close, it was an evolving discussion (and some might say emerging consensus). The discussion was running 2:1 in favor of a ban with new editors actively posting as recently as a few hours before it was closed. That's the indicator of a thread that should remain open and is definitely not one that should be closed except by admin action.

I will neither start nor support a new discussion as it would be supremely unfair to Legacypac for him to have disciplinary proposals being shotgunned at him one after the other and would create the appearance of people just throwing stuff against the wall to see if anything will stick (this is part of the issue some of us have with his liberal use of ANI against his editorial opponents, in fact, and to employ such a tact against him would - quite correctly - raise the hue of hypocrisy). LavaBaron (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't remember the count, but I didn't see a 2:1 consensus, and I saw the discussion trending away from a ban at the time. And as for admin/no admin, Ched is at least as competent at closing a discussion as anyone here - if it helps, I'm an admin and I endorse his close. And let's be productive now - just carrying on complaining that it didn't go the way you wanted won't achieve anything, so I suggest you either take some action or drop the stick. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Boing!, I honestly think the comments here from LavaBaron and Kashmiri regarding the close are more about disappointment that the editor being discussed there will continue with the same, disruptive/bad-faith behavior/name calling/personal attacks/edit warring/bullying as he's been allowed to get away with for so very long. For example, there have been two edit warring reports involving that editor in less than 24 hours time (one closed, one opened a few hours ago) that show the battleground behavior and other stuff mentioned in the AN/I report continues with him excusing every stitch of it. THAT is what's being opined here, not that editors didn't get what they wanted. To be completely honest, we're all tired of his (yes, I'm going to take a chance and say it) asshole-ish-ness. We're tired of it because it makes editing difficult and unpleasant. I know I'm not perfect, but, why is such a deep degree of continuous bad behavior allowed to continue seemingly unfettered? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You might well be right. But a community ban (or other similar action) only happens by community consensus, and there clearly was no consensus for any action after the discussion had been running from Jan 16 to Feb 11. Ched judged the lack of consensus for action and closed it correctly, in my view. If someone doesn't like a close, then there are policy-based processes to contest it and deal with it, and Ched pointed that out and was clearly happy for anyone to take such action. Essentially, you either put up or shut up, but don't just keep whining at the poor guy who made the call. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

You are correct about that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:51, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

First, the specific proposal that was closed was opened on January 24, not January 16. Second, no one here is "whining." We're having a relatively tame discussion, that's all. I've said my peace and am leaving. I don't know if others are staying but, if they do, Ched is free to terminate the discussion any time he starts to find it boring and/or annoying. Please don't try to transform this from coffee & biscuits into a steel-cage match by starting to weave words like "whining" and/or "whiner" into it. It seems, often, on WP discussions suddenly go from zero to 60 and it's usually because someone suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, thunders in and starts hurling charged adjectives around. Don't be that guy. LavaBaron (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Boing! I'm disappointed you would choose to characterize my comments as "carrying on complaining that it didn't go the way you wanted." I left a succinct and polite note addressing my concerns regarding an application of process - concerns echoed by two other editors - and then responded a final time saying I considered the matter closed, and had no intention to pursue further and was moving on. That is not characteristic of someone "carrying on" and "complaining because it didn't go the way you wanted." I'd advise you leave it there. As I've said twice, the decision was taken, it's no longer an issue. I don't plan on checking Ched's Talk page again. My objective - registering a concern - was accomplished. Ched is obviously a mature and capable editor and he can take it or leave it. C'est fin. LavaBaron (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

All I can really do is repeat "put up or shut up" regarding a policy-based challenge to the close - you keep saying you're going to to do the latter, but... Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• will try to respond later. — Ched :  ?  17:21, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No need to respond. The damage is done and I think everyone is moving on. LavaBaron (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you User:Boing! said Zebedee (and others) for the support and kind words. I can see some valid concerns here, and I am aware of them. If I see a chance to help, I will do so. — Ched :  ?  01:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• (I messed up the User:Boing! said Zebedee ping. — Ched :  ?  01:23, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey - congratulations there Peacemaker67, no doubt you'll do fine. Enjoy. — Ched :  ?  19:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Need some advice

Could you take a look at the most recent discussion at the Billy the Kid article and provide some neutral insight? What's happening there seems to be against BRD as well as policy on consensus building. I'm going to ping Floquenbeam as well, because, in my estimation, there are two editors who are taking advantage of me being on a 1RR restriction, based on their most recent actions at the article and the mean spirited comments made about my recent block. Of course, I'm angry, so it's possible I'm seeing things through very subjective eyes. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

OK - but it may take me a bit to get to it. I'm at a motel where their Wi-Fi and my laptop aren't playing very nice. But don't let a website make you angry ... well, if possible that is. I've certainly had my days too, so I understand. (Ched) 206.123.253.82 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:, because you asked, I've taken a look, and I have to say that I don't think you're "seeing things through very subjective eyes". I don't see anything to be angry about. I think the people that are disagreeing with you are being calm, polite, and making rational arguments. I don't think anyone besides you (and there seem to be 4-5 other people) are taking your side of the argument (although maybe I shouldn't count the reviewers, who may not want to take sides). I think you should stop personalizing the dispute, questioning motives, and continuing to claim the possibility of COI editing when there is no evidence of it. I think you should stop saying that normal WP methods for deciding arguments (RFC's, thorough consensus discussions) should be avoided because there's a GA clock ticking. I think you agreed to a 1RR restriction, but that doesn't mean people who disagree with you are on a 1RR restriction. If someone agrees with you, they can make a 2nd revert. If they don't, you need to accept that consensus is against you. I don't see anyone making any mean spirited comments about your block.

The overarching impression I get - which may or may not be correct, but you should at least consider - is that you're letting the stress of resolving everything before the GA clock buzzes get to you, and it's turning people who disagree with you into perceived enemies. You might want to consider whether just letting the GA fail, working on it without the pressure of the 7 day clock, and re-nominating it in the future might be the best way forward. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

(watching, un-pinged:) In practise, there's no 7-day GA clock, - both reviewers and editors have had more patience in the past. Relax, perhaps listen to some music sung by Hana Blažíková with precision and focus. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

(Also watching, also unpinged) I've opined there that I liked a particular solution (renaming the section) that you do not like. While I'm not impressed that the RFC is going forward without just allowing the discussion to take its course, I concur with Floq's meta take on the situation as well. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Winkelvi - will try to get to this tonight. — Ched :  ?  19:51, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Winkelvi - I only looked real quick because I have a friend visiting from out of town but real quick: I don't think the "they don't seem to understand" was meant to be condescending or demeaning. But when you quote it back to someone, I can see things escalating. Yes - the "LALALALA" makes it difficult, don't let those things get to you personally. Those things are where you NEED that "disconnect"; not the discussion on merits of whatever. I haven't dug into the merits of the "authentic photo" issue because I have only a min. here and there til late next week. Don't take anything personally, and don't respond personally. Just ask for clarification or merits of discussion. — Ched :  ?  13:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ched. Good advice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

OK - Winkelvi, I did a bit more reading - and I actually have more questions now than suggestions. I'm seeing a couple odd accounts opining on GA, even though a couple of them have a combined edit total of maybe 50 edits - sure, I can see where that would raise red-flags for you. (especially when at least one is a sleeper account). OK - I get the frustration now.

I'd still stick with an emotionally detached style of editing there though. Just a quick heads up too .. Maunus is an admin, even if he doesn't have the tools at the moment - he is one. (he occasionally turns in the tools to focus on content I think). One other thing - I don't really do "GA", "FA" stuff - so I'm not sure I can help with that. ... will get back to you in a day or two. (taking my lady friend out for the evening) — Ched :  ?  21:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the redlink new accounts (and sleeper accounts) are frustrating and so obvious, I'm surprised the other guy you mentioned above doesn't see what's happening. Consulting with one of the redlinks before doing something at the article? Really? The fact that he's an admin is even more disheartening considering the behavior and what is starting to feel like hounding of my edits at the BtK article. I have my suspicions as to whom the redlink accounts could belong to, but won't speculate here. Additionally, there has been a nemesis of sorts who has a history of vandalizing/harassing/disruption in my user space that has been trying to get the GA on the article failed for over a week now. All of this combined with those who seem to be taking advantage of my 1RR restriction and trying to push me over the brink has been, shall we say, disturbing. I had to stop last night because I realized I was starting to experience a panic-attack/autism meltdown that was literally giving me chest pains and causing my breathing to be non-optimal. I rarely, if ever, react over stress in such a manner. When I recognized what was going on, I closed down my computer for the night. The unilateral removal of a historic, state-run archive photo with the claim it was "dubious" and then telling me any upset I felt was my fault for introducing a bunch of questionable photos to the article was the last straw for me. I'm trying to bring the article to GA -- why would I intentionally introduce questionable photos of dubious origin to the article? That kind of baseless accusatory patter is not just disruptive but it's seriously not AGF oriented at all. Minus the Wiki-speak, it's just a terrible thing to accuse an experienced editor of. Dislike me, dislike how I edit, dislike how I have recently disagreed with you, but don't accuse me of being a dishonest liar who's trying to pull something over on readers and other editors. Anyway, enough of this for now. Thanks for taking another look at what's going on there. I appreciate your time and advice. Have a great evening with your date companion! ;-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)